Omri Bar-Elli1, Dan Steinitz1, Gaoling Yang1, Ron Tenne1, Anastasia Ludwig2, Yung Kuo3, Antoine Triller2, Shimon Weiss3,4, Dan Oron1. 1. Department of Physics of Complex Systems, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel. 2. L'Ecole Normale Superieure, Institute of Biologie (IBENS), Paris Sciences et Lettres (PSL), CNRS UMR 8197, Inserm 1024, 46 Rue d'Ulm, Paris 75005, France. 3. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Department of Physiology, and California NanoSystems Institute, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095, United States. 4. Department of Physics, Institute for Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel.
Abstract
Properly designed colloidal semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) have already been shown to exhibit high sensitivity to external electric fields via the quantum confined Stark effect (QCSE). Yet, detection of the characteristic spectral shifts associated with the effect of the QCSE has traditionally been painstakingly slow, dramatically limiting the sensitivity of these QD sensors to fast transients. We experimentally demonstrate a new detection scheme designed to achieve shot-noise-limited sensitivity to emission wavelength shifts in QDs, showing feasibility for their use as local electric field sensors on the millisecond time scale. This regime of operation is already potentially suitable for detection of single action potentials in neurons at a high spatial resolution.
Properly designed colloidal semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) have already been shown to exhibit high sensitivity to external electric fields via the quantum confined Stark effect (QCSE). Yet, detection of the characteristic spectral shifts associated with the effect of the QCSE has traditionally been painstakingly slow, dramatically limiting the sensitivity of these QD sensors to fast transients. We experimentally demonstrate a new detection scheme designed to achieve shot-noise-limited sensitivity to emission wavelength shifts in QDs, showing feasibility for their use as local electric field sensors on the millisecond time scale. This regime of operation is already potentially suitable for detection of single action potentials in neurons at a high spatial resolution.
Fluorescent
markers sensitive to the electric field in their local environment
have found extensive use in biological studies.[1−3] This is particularly
true for spatially mapping activity in neural networks, where classical
electrophysiological approaches do not allow probing of the entire
neural circuit. Most observations of neuronal activity are based on
calcium imaging,[4] an indirect proxy of
membrane potential dynamics due to the slow kinetics of calcium transients.
Lately, considerable efforts have been invested in development of
voltage-sensitive organic dyes[5] (VSDs)
and genetically encoded voltage-sensitive proteins.[6] Although these tools are likely to become essential for
studying the brain, their performance is still lacking either the
temporal or the spatial precision needed for simultaneous optical
recording of action potentials (APs) from a large number of neurons
inside the brain of a live, behaving animal. The current best performing
VSDs are based on photoinduced electron transfer between an electron-rich
quencher and an organic fluorophore.[2,5,7−9] This leads to a modulation of
the fluorescence intensity as a function of the electric field. Yet,
these markers still suffer from poor membrane retention, toxicity,
membrane capacitance perturbation, and photobleaching and are incapable
of resolving small features in neuronal membranes.[2,5,9]Highly fluorescent semiconductor nanoparticles,
known as quantum dots (QDs), were recently suggested as an alternative
to the classical VSDs[10−14] for direct detection of electric fields via the use of the quantum
confined Stark effect (QCSE). First observed in quantum wells,[15] the QCSE leads to a shift in the luminescence
center wavelength of the QD.[15,16] QCSE in QDs was first
observed over two decades ago,[17,18] but was usually characterized
in the ensemble.[19] Additionally, QCSE from
single QDs is easier to observe at low temperatures, where thermal
broadening of the emission line width of QDs is negligible. Observation
of QCSE-induced spectral shifts at room temperature was thought to
be challenging due to the presence of stochastic meandering of the
emission center wavelength known as spectral diffusion.[17] Yet, emission wavelength shifts of several nanometers
were recently reported at room temperature on single particles.[16] The characteristic electric fields due to APs,
on the order of hundreds of kV/cm, represent the perturbative limit
of the QCSE described above. Thus, optical phenomena observed under
much stronger fields are irrelevant.[20]QD markers exhibit several qualities that make them potentially favorable
over their organic counterparts. Owing to their nanoscale volume,
it is possible to embed QD-based sensors at different locations along
cell membranes,[14] opening the possibility
for sensing and resolving the local electric field in a subdiffraction
volume by using a single reporter QD. Importantly, functionalization
of QDs with transmembrane α-helical peptides facilitates their
spontaneous insertion into the membrane.[14] Modification of functionalizing peptides with intracellular protein
sequences that specifically recognize postsynaptic scaffolds, such
as PSD95 and gephyrin,[21−25] could provide the possibility for QD targeting to synapses. Furthermore,
fluorescence quantum yield and photostability of QDs are significantly
higher,[26] qualities that can be preserved
even in biological media,[14] allowing for
high photon flux from a single emitter over prolonged observation
times. This is crucial for biological applications taking into account
toxicity due to intense illumination for live samples.[27] In striking difference with standard VSDs and
protein-based sensors, QD-based sensors can be used at very low concentrations
without altering electrical properties of the membrane.[28,29] These unique advantages of QD-based sensors open up a new avenue
for super-resolution voltage imaging in living cells. However, to
be useful in realistic neuroscience applications, the QCSE has to
be observed on the time scale of an AP, corresponding to a sub-millisecond
time scale,[30] in stark contrast to the
characteristic one-second time resolution of typical studies of either
QCSE or spectral diffusion.[31] The main
goal of the following work is to examine whether detection of single-particle
spectral shifts on a millisecond time scale is possible and whether
these shifts can be measured down to the limit afforded by the shot
noise, the noise limit in any classical physical system due to the
probabilistic nature of the measurement process.The response
of QDs to an external electric field is usually described using perturbation
theory.[15] For a symmetric quantum well
the first-order correction to the emission wavelength vanishes, and
thus the spectral shift has a second-order dependence on the external
field. As a result, in a spatially symmetric system an external electric
field leads to a decrease in the band gap energy and a concomitant
red shift of the emission spectrum, quadratic with the field amplitude.
For an asymmetric well, in which the exciton has a permanent electric
dipole, the energy shift is linear in the external field, resulting
in either a blue-shift or a red-shift of the spectrum, depending on
the relative orientation of the exciton dipole moment and the external
field. Indeed, both blue-shifts and red-shifts were predicted[11,16] and observed for asymmetric type-II seeded nanorods.[16] Neural membrane resting potential limits the
application of symmetric wells for neuroimaging. While the potential
difference between the resting potential (∼−70 mV) and
the AP spike (∼+30 mV) is large,[30] a symmetric structure would exhibit only a small red-shift due to
the difference of the absolute values (∼40 mV). In contrast,
an asymmetric structure, responding in a linear fashion to voltage
change, can exhibit a large spectral shift relating to the sum of
absolute values (∼100 mV). In addition, since the electric
field also modifies the spatial wave function of the electron and
hole and influences their overlap, one expects the radiative lifetime
to be affected. In general, an increase in the emission energy should
be accompanied by an increased spatial hole and electron wave function
overlap and a shortening of the radiative lifetime.[11]Several physical quantities can, in principle, be
utilized for detecting changes in the local electric field. Most voltage
sensors exhibit a change in the emission intensity due to the presence
of the field. This is easily detected over a wide illumination area
and is thus compatible with standard neuronal imaging setups. While
this effect was measured in QDs,[12,16] it is expected
to be rather small for high quantum efficiency QDs, where exciton
recombination is dominated by radiative decay, as is necessary for
fast detection.[16] Perhaps the most intuitive
signature that can be measured is the spectral shift, but lifetime
imaging is also a possibility. Both of these approaches have been
explored for VSDs[32−34] and have generally been found to be inferior to imaging
using intensity changes.[2,35] We present both of
these voltage-dependent signals for QD-based sensors. A more detailed
theoretical discussion of the various detection schemes can be found
elsewhere.[10,11]From the above considerations,
it is clear that asymmetric QDs should be more sensitive to the effect
of electric fields, as has recently been shown both theoretically[11] and experimentally.[16] Here, we have chosen to work with type-II seeded nanorods (NRs)
consisting of a spherical ZnSe core overcoated by a CdS rod, as seen
in the transmission electron microscopy (TEM) image of Figure a and illustrated in Figure c.
Figure 1
(a) TEM image of the
type-II ZnSe/CdS NRs used in all experiments; scale bar is 200 nm.
(b) Extinction (blue) and photoluminescence (red) spectra of the NRs.
(c) Cartoon depicting the NRs’ shape. The rod-shaped shell
is asymmetric, and the core is closer to the thicker edge. The corresponding
energy level diagram of the NR is shown below. CB, conduction band;
VB, valence band. (d) Overhead view of a coverslip fashioned with
gold electrodes that were used to apply the electric field to the
NRs. The probe needles are touching the ground (central) and one of
the “live” electrodes. (e) Fluorescence detection scheme
used whereby a dichroic mirror splits the PL peak into two channels.
(a) TEM image of the
type-II ZnSe/CdS NRs used in all experiments; scale bar is 200 nm.
(b) Extinction (blue) and photoluminescence (red) spectra of the NRs.
(c) Cartoon depicting the NRs’ shape. The rod-shaped shell
is asymmetric, and the core is closer to the thicker edge. The corresponding
energy level diagram of the NR is shown below. CB, conduction band;
VB, valence band. (d) Overhead view of a coverslip fashioned with
gold electrodes that were used to apply the electric field to the
NRs. The probe needles are touching the ground (central) and one of
the “live” electrodes. (e) Fluorescence detection scheme
used whereby a dichroic mirror splits the PL peak into two channels.In these particles, the core is
not centered in the shell but rather close to the thicker edge of
the rod.[36] Such particles have already
been shown to exhibit a sizable QCSE due to the separation of the
charge carriers’ wave functions and a close to linear dependence
on the field.[16] Synthesis of ZnSe/CdS nanorods
was performed according to an adapted known procedure,[36] yielding particles of 14.4 ± 2.4 nm in
width and 24.7 ± 3.7 nm in length (Figure S1); these have been shown to be an asymmetric type-II structure.[37] The extinction and photoluminescence (PL) of
the ensemble suspended in solution are given in Figure b.To characterize the ability to rapidly
detect electric field changes, we deposit NRs on a horizontal electrode
array. Figure d shows
a top view of a coverslip patterned with gold electrodes. The large
central electrode has six protruding fingers on each side, and the
secondary electrodes are positioned between them. The gap between
the electrodes is several micrometers, depending on the fabrication
process. Voltage is applied using two metallic micromanipulator needles.
The first, connected to the center electrode, is grounded, whereas
the second is connected to an amplified voltage source, which is modulated
at 1 kHz, and with a duty cycle of 50%. Voltages ranged between 50
and 100 V across a gap of several micrometers, yielding electric fields
of comparable magnitude to membrane APs (see Methods section for more details).Single NRs are identified within
the gaps between the electrodes by observing blinking in a camera
image taken through the microscope objective. Emission from the NRs
is collected through an oil-immersion objective and then split using
a dichroic mirror (Figure e), set to the center emission wavelength of the ensemble,
onto two single-photon detectors. The detection time stamps are measured
and logged using a time-correlated single photon counting module (see Methods).The typical width of a single NR
emission spectrum is on the order of tens of nanometers; thus detecting
a shift of only a few nanometers may be challenging. The “balanced
detector” depicted in Figure e is designed to provide maximal sensitivity to the
emission spectral shifts. In addition, the use of high temporal resolution
single-photon detectors enables monitoring changes in the decay rate
of the emission. Thus, three independent measurements are performed
simultaneously: intensity fluctuations known as ΔF, spectral shifts (Δλ), extracted from the intensity
ratio of the two detectors, and lifetime variations (Δτ).A typical time trace of a single NR emission is presented in Figure a, where the intensity
recorded by each channel is approximately half of the total intensity.
It is clear that the emitter fluctuates between a bright, a dark,
and, in some cases, a “gray” intermediate state.[38,39] This phenomenon, known as blinking, is further illustrated by examining
the histogram of the trace (Figure S2).
Using the sum of the two channels a threshold is applied in order
to eliminate dark “off”-state periods from the analysis
(Figure S2).
Figure 2
(a) Example of a blinking
trace (bin size 1 ms) of a single NR when detected by the setup depicted
in Figure e. The intensities
recorded in the reflection (blue) and transmission (red) channels
are almost identical, showing a 50:50 split of the emission peak by
the dichroic. The sum of the signal from both channels (yellow) presents
detection rates of up to 400 kHz. The threshold chosen for this measurement
is shown with a black dashed line. (b) Photon detection coincidences
as a function of delay between the two channels. A dip is evident
at zero delay, where the correlation drops to 6% after correcting
for the background, indicating that the fluorescence is collected
from a single emitter. An estimated background level is plotted as
a dashed red line. (c) Fluorescence decay in counts per second (CPS)
as a function of time in the reflection (blue) and transmission (red)
channels. (d) Example spectrum from a single NR (30 s exposure).
(a) Example of a blinking
trace (bin size 1 ms) of a single NR when detected by the setup depicted
in Figure e. The intensities
recorded in the reflection (blue) and transmission (red) channels
are almost identical, showing a 50:50 split of the emission peak by
the dichroic. The sum of the signal from both channels (yellow) presents
detection rates of up to 400 kHz. The threshold chosen for this measurement
is shown with a black dashed line. (b) Photon detection coincidences
as a function of delay between the two channels. A dip is evident
at zero delay, where the correlation drops to 6% after correcting
for the background, indicating that the fluorescence is collected
from a single emitter. An estimated background level is plotted as
a dashed red line. (c) Fluorescence decay in counts per second (CPS)
as a function of time in the reflection (blue) and transmission (red)
channels. (d) Example spectrum from a single NR (30 s exposure).QDs are, to a large degree, single-photon
emitters. After a single excitation cycle typically only a single
photon is emitted even if multiple excitations occurred. This leads
to an anticorrelation between detections in the two channels at times
shorter than the radiative lifetime.[40,41] In Figure b such a correlation
plot is given showing a significant antibunching dip at zero delay,
6% after correcting for correlations due to background. Note that
for two uncorrelated emitters the antibunching at zero delay would
be at least 50%, assuming similar intensities for both emitters. Using
this method, we ensure further analysis is performed only on single
NRs. Note that estimating the antibunching is not essential for imaging
but is rather used here to separate clustering effects.A typical
fluorescence decay plot measured in the transmission and reflection
channels is given in Figure c. The small difference in the decay constants between the
channels arises from the slight difference in the overlap integral
for different energy levels. A typical single NR spectrum is shown
in Figure d; such
measurements require long exposures (10s of seconds), making them
unsuitable for detection of fast spectral shifts. Furthermore, to
overcome the noise of the camera employed as the detector, spectra
acquisition requires high excitation intensities that may bleach even
the more stable NRs, rendering them nonfluorescent.In order
to extract the wavelength shift from the data collected in our setup,
where the emission peak is split by wavelength into two channels,
we used the following model, which is in line with previously discussed
procedures.[11] The emission peak is modeled
as a Gaussian function (Figure a), whose width is determined from the single-particle spectra
that were collected and defined as σ = 25 nm for all calculations
(see Supporting Information). A step function
is used to simulate a dichroic mirror with zero loss and 50% transmission
at a chosen wavelength (typically 600–605 nm). Next, a second,
spectrally shifted, Gaussian is used to model a shift due to the QCSE.
One needs to define a quantity that reliably relates the actual spectral
shift in nanometers and the measured intensities. While one can propose
different estimators such as the intensity ratio between the two detection
channels,[11] it is advantageous to use an
estimator that has the same properties as the estimated quantity,
in this case linearity with the electric field, and we chose to usewhere t and r are the transmission and reflection intensities recorded
in the two channels, respectively, and the subscript indicates for
which Gaussian they were calculated, 0 for the original Gaussian and V for the shifted one. This quantity is sensitive to wavelength
shifts but not to intensity fluctuations since each part is normalized
to the total intensity recorded in the same time period. Three examples
of this estimator are given in Figure b, corresponding to three particles with a different
center wavelength of emission. The sensitivity of the estimator and
detection scheme, in general, is given by the slope of this curve.
One can observe that while this sensitivity is reduced for a particle
whose spectrum is not centered on the dichroic mirror’s transmission
edge, it remains relatively high even for shifts as large as 20 nm.
Clearly, maximal sensitivity is reached when the original spectrum
is well centered on the dichroic or, alternatively, when the shift
is in the direction of the dichroic cutoff wavelength.
Figure 3
(a) Simulated emission
spectrum centered at x0 = 600 nm with
σ = 25 nm (blue). The same spectrum shifted by Δλ
= 10 nm while maintaining its width and area (red). A step function
at 600 nm, simulating a dichroic mirror’s transmission coefficient
(yellow). (b) Three examples of the QCSE estimator (a) plotted as a function of the wavelength shift (Δλ),
where x0 is the center of the original
spectrum before voltage was applied; this is used to estimate Δλ
from the data. The inset shows the three simulated spectra used and
a step function. (c) Histogram of 120 QCSE spectral shifts measured
from 82 NRs under various electric fields equivalent to those in neuronal
membranes. (d) Allan deviation of the Δλ estimator of
two different NRs as a function of bin size (diamonds), compared with
theoretical curves of shot noise (lines) when accounting for the count
rate.
(a) Simulated emission
spectrum centered at x0 = 600 nm with
σ = 25 nm (blue). The same spectrum shifted by Δλ
= 10 nm while maintaining its width and area (red). A step function
at 600 nm, simulating a dichroic mirror’s transmission coefficient
(yellow). (b) Three examples of the QCSE estimator (a) plotted as a function of the wavelength shift (Δλ),
where x0 is the center of the original
spectrum before voltage was applied; this is used to estimate Δλ
from the data. The inset shows the three simulated spectra used and
a step function. (c) Histogram of 120 QCSE spectral shifts measured
from 82 NRs under various electric fields equivalent to those in neuronal
membranes. (d) Allan deviation of the Δλ estimator of
two different NRs as a function of bin size (diamonds), compared with
theoretical curves of shot noise (lines) when accounting for the count
rate.Applying this model to experimental
measurements is straightforward, as it is possible to numerically
extract the spectral shift from the value of the estimator (see Supporting Information). It should be noted,
however, that to determine whether or not an electric field was present
does not require the aforementioned model. Rather, the model is used
as a unit conversion method in order to present the results in units
of wavelength. The results from 82 different NRs under various voltage
modulation amplitudes (for details on the specific values used for
each particle under study see Table S1)
are presented as a histogram in Figure c, where it is evident that most NRs gave small, yet
measurable, spectral shifts. This is mostly due to the shifts’
dependence on the orientation[11,16] between the electric
field and the NR (as shown by the correlation with orientation presented
in Figure S3) and to a lesser extent due
to heterogeneity of structure and composition within the ensemble.
QCSE-induced shifts are small when the electric field is perpendicular
to the long dimension of the NR. The largest shifts measured are a
red-shift of +7.1 nm and a blue-shift of −5.5 nm, which is
comparable within the limited statistics of our measurements. Notably,
the dependence of the spectral shift on the electric field amplitude
is linear, as expected for a type-II system, and a transition from
red-shift to blue-shift is observed upon inversion of the field direction
(Figure S4).To study the ability
of this system to detect a transient applied voltage, we used a simple
voltage scheme, where a 1 kHz, 50% duty cycle square wave was applied
to the NRs (see Methods). Each time bin of
1 ms is divided into two halves, first when voltage is applied and
second when no voltage is applied. The analysis is performed on each
time bin separately such that the sensitivity and detection probability
of a single short voltage pulse, similar in duration to an isolated
AP, are extracted. The estimator is calculated only for time bins
that cross the defined intensity threshold. An example of the estimator
distribution for a single particle is given in Figure S5. The mean and standard deviation of the distribution
are used to report the spectral shift and its error.To show
that this measurement is indeed shot noise limited, we calculate the
error yielded by the model when only shot noise is considered (see Supporting Information). Taking care to average
only consecutive “on-state” bins (see Supporting Information), we present the Allan deviation of
two different NRs in Figure d. A shot-noise-limited process would show a decrease in the
error of N–0.5, where N is the number of photons or bins averaged over. Indeed, for short
averaging time windows, the error in the estimator is only due to
shot noise. At longer times, however, there is a decrease in the slope
and the error does not improve as expected by shot noise. The averaging
time for which the difference between the shot noise limit and the
measured error varies among particles is between a few and tens of
milliseconds, reaching more than 100 ms for some particles. This type
of deviation is expected in the presence of a slow “red”
noise, such as the one induced here by spectral diffusion. However,
as we show here, it has little effect on the ability to sense fast,
millisecond-scale, processes.The use of avalanche photodiodes
(APDs) affords high temporal resolution that enables an analysis of
the fluorescence decay lifetime under an electric field at the single-particle
level. The collected data contain information on the lifetime of both
parts of the spectrum (reflected blue part and transmitted red part).
Each of these can be separated into periods in which voltage is applied
(Von) and those in which it is not (Voff). As may be seen in the example in Figure a, all four curves
were well fitted with a biexponential fit, yielding eight lifetime
constants (τ). The lifetime variations are defined here as the
difference in the decay lifetime within the same channel between Von and Voff periods. Figure b shows all the measured
lifetime changes of the long component due to QCSE in the reflected
detection channel. Similar histograms are provided for the short component
as well as for the transmission channel in Figure S6. As mentioned above, the spectral shift is to be accompanied
by a change of the overlap between the wave functions of the hole
and the electron changing according to the radiative lifetime decay.
A positive correlation between the lifetime variation and the spectral
shift is thus expected.[11] In Figure c this correlation is indeed
visible: a blue-shift (negative Δλ) is accompanied by
a shortening of the lifetime (negative Δτ). Similar plots
for both lifetime components channel are given in Figure S7. While we measure a clear lifetime change by using
data acquired over tens of seconds, performing an analysis of the
lifetime variation on a millisecond time scale, similar to the one
we present for the Δλ analysis, is difficult. Normally,
determining the lifetime from a small number of photons is done by
taking the mean of their time of arrival. This approach is limited
when the excitation repetition period is comparable to the radiative
lifetime, which is the case here. Lowering the repetition rate of
excitation would decrease the photon flux but should enable detection
of transient electric fields using the lifetime data. As an alternative,
NRs with shorter lifetimes may be used.
Figure 4
(a) Example of lifetime
traces measured from a single particle in each channel while voltage
was applied (Von) and while it was not
(Voff). A biexponential fit is plotted
for each of the four curves, yielding eight lifetime constants per
particle. (b) Histogram of the longer lifetime variation (Δτ2) due to QCSE in the reflected channel. (c) Scatter plot depicting
the correlation between spectral and lifetime shift. A trend line
is shown as a guide for the eye. (d) Histogram of the intensity variations
measured due to QCSE.
(a) Example of lifetime
traces measured from a single particle in each channel while voltage
was applied (Von) and while it was not
(Voff). A biexponential fit is plotted
for each of the four curves, yielding eight lifetime constants per
particle. (b) Histogram of the longer lifetime variation (Δτ2) due to QCSE in the reflected channel. (c) Scatter plot depicting
the correlation between spectral and lifetime shift. A trend line
is shown as a guide for the eye. (d) Histogram of the intensity variations
measured due to QCSE.Determining the intensity fluctuation due to QCSE is done
by examining the histogram of the blinking trace for periods of Von and Voff separately
(Figure S2). The intensity change shows
only a weak correlation with the spectral shift (Figure S2 inset); this is due to the small magnitude of ΔF that is expected for high quantum yield QDs, making the
measurement susceptible to the effects of the electric field on the
blinking statistics, thus lowering the degree of correlation.While the correlations between Δλ, Δτ, and
ΔF are in agreement with the expected effect
of QCSE, it is not possible to determine one by measuring the other
as the degree of correlation is modest. Our data show, for example,
that the particle exhibiting the largest Δλ (7.1 nm) also
exhibits a negligible ΔF (0.2%). We present
the detection and false positive probabilities of a 1.5 ms square
voltage pulse (Figure ) calculated from the data collected from the NR which exhibited
the largest QCSE spectral shift (Δλ). A threshold is set
in units of σ, the standard deviation of a(Δλ).
We calculate a confidence level of 65% for detecting a 1.5 ms square
voltage pulse with a false positive probability smaller than 4% or,
alternatively, a 50% confidence level with less than 1% false positive
probability (Figure ). One should also consider that several NRs may be embedded in a
single neuron to significantly increase the detection probability
and nearly eliminate the false positive probability. For example,
three well-oriented NRs would yield a false positive probability of
0.1% while maintaining a 61% detection probability, when considering
a detection event when at least two of the three NRs crossed the detection
threshold (Figure b, red).
Figure 5
Numerical calculations for the detection of an action potential
using the parameters extracted from the experimental data of the NR
presenting the highest Δλ. (a) Detection confidence level
(blue) and false positive probability (red) as a function of the threshold
in units of σ. (b) False positive probability as a function
of the detection confidence level for when a single (blue) or three
(red) NRs are considered.
Numerical calculations for the detection of an action potential
using the parameters extracted from the experimental data of the NR
presenting the highest Δλ. (a) Detection confidence level
(blue) and false positive probability (red) as a function of the threshold
in units of σ. (b) False positive probability as a function
of the detection confidence level for when a single (blue) or three
(red) NRs are considered.We experimentally demonstrate a detection scheme for spectral
shifts due to the QCSE. We show that this scheme is sensitive to spectral
shifts an order of magnitude smaller than the peak width. Moreover,
we show our measurements are limited only by shot noise at short time
scales. The detection scheme used enables simultaneous measurement
of three effects that applied voltage has on QDs, Δλ,
Δτ, and ΔF, allowing for thorough
evaluation of the correlations between them.We conclude that
the use of a “balanced” detection scheme to observe
spectral shifts yields superb sensitivity to voltage transients, enabling
detection of a transient equivalent to a single AP with high levels
of confidence especially when considering a realistic case of several
NRs embedded in a single neuron membrane. Improving the detection
capabilities further is possible with higher emission quantum efficiencies
than the ones reported here. We find that measurement of spectral
shifts yields better results even when compared to NRs with the strongest
emission intensity modulation due to the QCSE (where the underlying
microscopic process is likely stochastic charging). Overall, our results
point at the feasibility of using NR voltage sensors for rapid, wide-field
voltage sensing with a high spatial resolution. Moreover, the “balanced”
detection scheme can be easily retrofitted to practically any commercial
microscope using a standard low-noise camera and a commercial imaging
dichroic splitter.
Methods
A 470 nm or a 510 nm pulsed
laser diode with 20 MHz repetition rate (Edinburgh Instruments, EPL-470,
EPL-510) was used for single-NR excitation. The excitation laser was
coupled into a microscope (Zeiss, Axiovert 200 inverted microscope)
and focused using a high-NA oil immersion objective (Zeiss, Plan Apochromat
X63 NA 1.4). The epi-detected signal was filtered, using a dichroic
mirror (Semrock, Di02-R488-25 × 36) and a long-pass filter (Semrock,
488LP edge basic), and directed to a home-built spectrally tunable
balanced detection setup. A dichroic mirror (Semrock, Di02-R594) was
used to split the emission peak from the NRs. Fine tuning of the dichroic
cutoff wavelength to 600 nm was enabled by changing the angle of incidence.
Each part of the spectrally split signal was coupled into a multimode
fiber and detected by an avalanche photodiode (PerkinElmer SPCM-AQ4C)
that was connected to a time-correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC)
system (Picoquant, HydraHarp 400).Single-particle spectra were
measured using a fiber-coupled spectrometer (Princeton Instruments,
Acton SP2300i) and a CCD camera (Princeton Instruments, Pixis256).
A standard CCD camera (Thorlabs, DCC1645C) was used in top view imaging
for positioning of the voltage probes.Coverslips (#1.0, 25
mm diameter) were prepared with gold microelectrodes (Figure d; see Supporting Information for further details on the preparation
of electrodes) using standard clean room photolithography procedures.
NR samples were diluted in 4% poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (Sigma-Aldrich)
in toluene and spin coated at 3000 rpm, and individual NRs were fixed
in the PMMA layer. Probe positioners (Cascade Microtech, DPP-105-M–Al-S)
were used to apply voltage to a chosen electrode pair, and a multimeter
was used to measure the resistance between the electrodes to ensure
there was indeed no short. Voltage was supplied from an amplifier
(TREK, 2205) fed by a delay generator (Stanford Research Systems,
DG645). A synchronized trigger was directed from the delay generator
to the TCSPC to mark the beginning of each voltage cycle. In all experiments,
the voltage applied was a 1 kHz 50% duty cycle square wave of amplitude
50–100 V after amplification, producing voltage pulses of 0.5
ms. Considering an ideal plate capacitor approximation, the electric
field would be 125–400 kV/cm depending on the interelectrode
gap. In practice, fields are expected to be lower, as this is far
from an ideal plate capacitor. This field amplitude is comparable
to the fields that exist in neuronal membranes. The voltage was applied
to the central electrode (typically the ground) and an adjacent “finger”
electrode. To reverse the voltage in the same measurement, the connections
to the probes were switched.
Authors: Riccardo Scott; Alexander W Achtstein; Anatol V Prudnikau; Artsiom Antanovich; Laurens D A Siebbeles; Mikhail Artemyev; Ulrike Woggon Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Okhil K Nag; Michael H Stewart; Jeffrey R Deschamps; Kimihiro Susumu; Eunkeu Oh; Vassiliy Tsytsarev; Qinggong Tang; Alexander L Efros; Roman Vaxenburg; Bryan J Black; YungChia Chen; Thomas J O'Shaughnessy; Stella H North; Lauren D Field; Philip E Dawson; Joseph J Pancrazio; Igor L Medintz; Yu Chen; Reha S Erzurumlu; Alan L Huston; James B Delehanty Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Mustafa Caglar; Raj Pandya; James Xiao; Sarah K Foster; Giorgio Divitini; Richard Y S Chen; Neil C Greenham; Kristian Franze; Akshay Rao; Ulrich F Keyser Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 11.189